Vote to close and delete.
If this site flags, and has closed, numerous questions that are opinion-based, such as the recurring Socialism vs Communism ones, why should it tolerate one that is no less likely to be opinion-based in its answers AND seems to be construed to denigrate the person it is aimed at?
Putting a +500 bounty just means it technically can't be closed, nothing else.
note that there are definitions of fascism. See the dictionaries and encyclopedias.
There are definitions for Communism and Socialism as well and that doesn't preclude questions about their comparison from being stringently vetted and often closed.
This question, with debatable value to be expected from its answers, is unlikely to promote goodwill in the SE.Po community. And as such, it ought to be treated much as the SE.History has long learned to keep a close eye on even well-meaning questions concerning Nazis.
Not that I believe this question to be well-meaning.
For anyone in the 45-55% who voted for Trump - leaving an intentional spread there - this is basically a direct attack of their political views, dressed up as a question.
And, no, this is is not me as a sympathizer of Trump, quite the opposite. I don't mind fact-driven questions concerning his integrity or his competence.
Edit, in response to comments
The attempt at linking SE's moderation mechanism to censorship is rather weak:
Definition of censor (Entry 1 of 2)
1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as
a: an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter
The key part that most people on this site will agree that a government ought not to suppress free speech. That's not in debate.
However, when you join this site you are expected to adhere to its code of conduct, and follow guidelines on the quality of what you post here. That's where moderation kicks in, and unlike government censorship, it is community-driven.
In the past, I've had some of my SE posts deleted. For the most part, I did not object, recognizing either objectionable or low quality content. The one exception, where I was really frustrated a question was closed as duplicate, I attributed to (technical) incompetence, rather than malice. Even when I thought I was right, I was able to understand someone else holding the viewpoint that the site was better off without my post.
A new contributor may struggle with this distinction, but not a veteran user.
If the OP's question remains open, so be it. Again, this is a community decision and I have no problem with it, although I remain strongly opposed to both this question and its apparent intent.
But to deny the standing (borrowed from legal terminology) of attempts at shutting it down, via the normal community moderation mechanism, on ground of censorship, rather than arguing on the merits of the question, boils down to saying SE should not moderate.